Sorry but are you absolutely sure that’s a fact? Have they possibly changed the definition and not told me.

You absolute idiot. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that it’s possible to hold a valid OPINION other than their own? Your OPINION is that Abrams Trek is bad. Many, many other people hold an opposing OPINION. Does that make them wrong? NO IT DOES NOT. Get that into your head, please.

]]>By: trekkie99http://www.trektoday.com/content/2012/09/star-trek-2-has-a-new-title/comment-page-1/#comment-8543
Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:26:00 +0000http://www.trektoday.com/content/?p=19865#comment-8543Hello, it’s me again. I see the discussion continued here. 🙂 Some people really have a need to defend the work of Abrams-Kurtzmann-Orci, no matter how much it deviates from Gene’s original Trek. Well, I’m not one of those. I think Star Trek ought to be what it is and not prostitute itself. This prostitution began already with ENT and has reached its peak with the current Abr-Kur-Orc movie(s). Well, I’ m aware that the studio has the need to make profit out of it, and that the fanbase needs to grow, but does Star Trek really have to sink that low in order to reach that? That’s a rhetorical question. And, judging by its development so far, it has indeed sunk that low. But, I guess, since we live in decadent times, the franchise adapted itself to the needs of a decadent audience. It’s just selling itself, for the sole purpose of survival. No substance, only form. Hence, prostitution. I’d say that is bad for Star Trek, no matter how it currently appears on the surface. In the short term, this reboot might bring in money and success, and an apparent rejuvenation of the franchise, but in the long term it will most likely be the opposite of that.

And to answer to bradley’s reply to my previous post… Well, yes, I, too, have an opinion, of course, but I think there is enough evidence to support the notion that Trek indeed has degenerated rather than evolved further. Many Trek fans would concur with this, and I’d say that this observation, if made objectively, leads to an objective conclusion. Just because something bears a particular name, in this case Star Trek, doesn’t necessarily mean it is the original. This is the classic example of copy vs. original. To illustrate this with an example from a ST:TNG episode, Lt. Astor dies in an accident on a planet, and upon return to the Enterprise the little boy is seemingly reunited with his mother, i.e. Lt. Astor. Actually, an alien entity has taken the form of his mother which now wants to bond with this boy. But the child is naive and does not realize that it is an illusion, a copy. The boy wants his mother badly, and so the entity can trick him. However, Picard and Troi are aware that Lt. Astor is dead, and what appears before them is only a form without substance. It is a soulless entity which could never give the little Jeremy the true affection. So, in a similar manner, current Trek is a sort of soulless entity, lacking essence. As to your accusation that I am a zealot, that’s just ridiculous and unfounded. Regarding episodes, as a matter of fact I’ve seen them all, not just once. And by all, I mean all five series. So, I have some idea of what Star Trek isabout. I don’t think I’m reading too much into it, but exactly that much as should be read. In addition to being a fun, intelligent sci-fi, Star Trek is also about exploration – of human condition as well as of space. It is also a vehicle for examining some human issues philosophically. Star Trek ain’t Stargate, Star Wars, or something like that. I thought that was obvious enough. But, obviously, it doesn’t seem that obvious since this shallow and empty cliche, leaning towards the original idea only in form but not in substance, is considered genuine Trek. What a rip off. I just hope they reset the whole alternate universe thing and tell us this didn’t actually happen at all. 🙂 .

Something for fans to think about, before slandering J.J. Abrams and his noble efforts.

]]>By: bradleyhttp://www.trektoday.com/content/2012/09/star-trek-2-has-a-new-title/comment-page-1/#comment-8438
Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:22:00 +0000http://www.trektoday.com/content/?p=19865#comment-8438I’d like to apologize for my original comment. It was uncalled for.
]]>By: bradleyhttp://www.trektoday.com/content/2012/09/star-trek-2-has-a-new-title/comment-page-1/#comment-8429
Sat, 15 Sep 2012 01:20:00 +0000http://www.trektoday.com/content/?p=19865#comment-8429I agree 100%.
]]>By: Mikehttp://www.trektoday.com/content/2012/09/star-trek-2-has-a-new-title/comment-page-1/#comment-8411
Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:34:00 +0000http://www.trektoday.com/content/?p=19865#comment-8411Again, I agree with most of what you said, but there’s still that one little point… Difficult to see the future is, always in motion… Had Abrams & O&K not been given the reins, that’s not to say that someone else wouldn’t have been by now and that that vision wouldn’t have been equally or more compelling without doing what they did do… (what they did do isn’t a debate I’m really interested in having here and now). After all, that is an alternate timeline in itself, right? The universe in which Abrams didn’t get Star Trek… the one where something else happened… What happened? I dunno… I’m not there and neither are you… so speculation therein is rather…….. unfruitful. But the rights holders to Star Trek clearly wanted to produce more Trek… I don’t really think JJ stands for JesusJesus… he’s not the second coming. If it wasn’t him, it would’ve been someone else… at least that’s my speculation about that alternate reality. 😉
]]>